|Funny Pictures||Funny Videos|
|Funny GIFs||YouTube Videos|
Rank #3575 on ContentLevel 250 Comments: Contaminated Win
OfflineSend mail to mysticninja Block mysticninja Invite mysticninja to be your friend
- Views: 1606Lawyer'd
23 10 Total: +13
- Views: 733Generic Title
17 5 Total: +12
- Views: 852Skippers gonna skip
25 15 Total: +10
- Views: 1113Victory is Imminent.
12 3 Total: +9
latest user's comments
|#1 - I had to rewind, and rewind, and rewind, and..........||04/14/2014 on The Wedding||+2|
|#29 - Why.||04/12/2014 on say my name||0|
|#628 - Always a pleasure =D||04/10/2014 on More fun with toenails||0|
|#621 - You are the reason I have a job. [+] (2 new replies)||04/10/2014 on More fun with toenails||0|
|#70 - "We don't know what turn signals are." -Massachusetts [+] (1 new reply)||04/08/2014 on biased||+4|
|#8 - How about the predictor: "See the foreshadowing? He's goi… [+] (1 new reply)||04/03/2014 on Dorkly is instant front...||0|
#10 - pentol (04/03/2014) [-]
being the predictor is fun tho, or rather, it validates ones ego to a significant degree. if you make a correct statement, it means that you "get" the show, and you are smarter than the intended audience (so when you predict what is gonna happen in a mature show, you can feel like you are smarter than everyone, which is satisfying as fuck)
to some degree you are right when you do, because most people didn't predict what was going to happen, and a fair portion of them wouldn't be able to even if they cared to try.
they key point is to speak your theories when it is socially acceptable, such as when you are not watching the show, but you are both talking about it. then, a good theory will add another level of engagement, because you will form an opinion on wether or not the theory is right, and you anticipate it to be proven/disproven. someone who talks when you are watching can be anoying, so then people find analysists a chore to put up with, but they are more engaged in the show than you are, and you are grumpy for the fact, and that is kind of a dick move too.
|#76 - You guys don't try anymore eh?||04/03/2014 on Hypocrites everywhere||0|
|#12 - What happened to BAHHHHHHnie?||04/03/2014 on (untitled)||0|
|#10 - OH H2O "too" got it. Thanks boiexplain.||04/01/2014 on Boy, that escalated quickly.||0|
|#8 - jokexplain ? [+] (50 new replies)||04/01/2014 on Boy, that escalated quickly.||+3|
#9 - bioexplain (04/01/2014) [-]
#68 - historiexplain (04/02/2014) [-]
i appreciate the bone tossing, also i've been doing similar stuff on other content.. anywho Louis Jacques Thénard discovered it in 1818 when he threw in some barium peroxide and nitric acid. He later improved this by adding sulfuric acid to hydrochloric acid (which precipitates the barium sulfate byproduct.). His way for manufacturing 2(HO) was used until the 20th century, until they improved upon it by using ammonium bisulfate. However, now they take the elements and use thermodynamics to create it just from hydrogen and oxygen. This was a problem because doing this usually would want to become water instead (because less energy is required) However, in '05 some German technicians developed a minute (nanometer-size) phase-controlled noble metal crystal particles on carbon support, which acts as a catalyst to make 2(HO) instead of H2O. Louis was a teacher, and a obviously a chemist. He (like most 19th century scientists) liked playing around with shit, and one day he discovered 2(HO) he also did a profound research paper on bile.Louis was a cool scientist, and actually got his name inscribed on the Eiffel tower, along with 71 other people. Finally he deveolped a pigment known as Thernard's blue, as a cheap coloring agent, because Jean-Antoine-Claude Chaptal wanted him to. Thernard's blue is also more commonly known as cobalt blue, a coloring option on the Jeep Wrangler, and the color of Sonic the Hedgehog.
#82 - anonymous (04/02/2014) [-]
This is cool. We get bioxplain, chemexplain and history on the subject. Please do drop whatever wherever, all of you. I would like to learn on fj, so whatever subject is even slightly related can be responded to
#103 - weaponexplain (04/02/2014) [-]
Sorry for the delay, I was busy, definitely not being emotionally distraught over the HIMYM finale.
Anyway, where do I even begin on how water can be used as a weapon? What weapon in mother nature's arsenal can even come close to the sheer destructive force of water? Over the course of human history, nothing except for maybe disease, has killed as many people as tsunamis, floods, and the ocean have.
And that's just the earth alone. Humans can be far more intricate with water. Perhaps the simplest and most savage way to kill with water is to shove someones face underwater, or take a pointy icicle and shove it through their jugular. And then in the civil rights period south, police were fond of using fire hoses to give a quick bath to disgruntled citizens who happened to have more melanin in their skin than others. Steam could also be used as a weapon, provided you can get close enough to somebody to turn their face into a reenactment of the Nazis in Raiders of the Lost Ark.
I have heard of new research trying to use sound waves to pulse water forcefully enough to cause damage, but I don't know where they are on that. I guess it depends on where you draw the line, how much of the weapon has to be water based for it to count?
#25 - jamesisnotreal (04/01/2014) [-]
Although Hydrogen Peroxide is deadly in high concentrations, we do have small concentrations in our body, specifically our blood, to ensure that the haem group in our blood doesn't 'rust' in our body agree with everything you said, just thought i'd add to it because i'ma smartass
#42 - anonymous (04/02/2014) [-]
#28 - bioexplain (04/01/2014) [-]
Well first I'm going to be covering the basics (what is a gene, mitosis and meiosis, punnett squares etc.) then I will do recombination and genetic linkage, then a short one on constructing a genetic map. After that I'll do transcription and then cloning. Also yes I use GIMP 2.
#29 - mcbexplain (04/01/2014) [-]
You might as well through replication and translation there as well. I know that back when I made those videos, people found transcription easier to understand once they understood DNA replication in the molecular level.
Also, if you plan on making educational videos, I suggest using camtasia, but if you want to stick to picture panels, then you could still use gimp.
Just hit file-new, pick the dimensions of the background and set it as transparent. Make the separate pictures that you want to use as a slide separately, and insert them as layers. This helps if you want to add some nice effects to the pictures.
Another thing I recommend, is using pyMol (you should be able to get the educational one with your .edu e-mail address). I used it a lot back when I took Biophysics and it's awesome for 3D molecular rendering.
Its nice to see people who like biology as much as I do on here
#33 - bioexplain (04/01/2014) [-]
Oh of course replication and translation will be covered. I touch on it in the first content but I'll cover it more fully when I talk about the differences between eukaryotic genes and prokaryotic genes. I'm thinking of making comics. I may do videos later but not quite yet. I use pyMol all the time! It's ridiculously useful for modelling proteins.
#40 - mcbexplain (04/01/2014) [-]
oh thats fine man, I doubt I'd have had the time to explain things on here anyway. Plus you probably know a ton more about it then I do seeing as I'm only on the first actual year of my master's.
But yeah I'm currently working with Absidia corymbifera vs. certain strains of bacteria and Gauses's exlusion principle, though I'm beginning to notice that it the fungus isn't just out-competing the bacteria in the dishes, it might be producing some kind of antibiotic and killing them, because every time I try to isolate bacteria in the dish, I can't find any. But I haven't had the time to look further into it and design an experiment to determine whether thats true or not. Plus I don't have any funding at the moments so it's been delayed.
And nice, you got to travel. What are you working on?
#46 - bioexplain (04/02/2014) [-]
That sounds like a lot of fun. During my masters I looked rhododendron responses to topology. It was dull. In the small amount of time I worked on microorganisms I remember so many things going wrong. I once had a mixture of gram negative rods and gram positive cocci collected from a sample. The first week went well, the streak plates had all that was expected but the second week when we isolated them in different types of agar the gram positive cocci has just vanished. Wasn't even in regular nutrient agar. Anyway, I'm currently expanding on the work of Friedman et. al. on the drought tolerance of Anastatica hierochuntica, pretty much doing the same thing just with better equipment.
Join Subscribe day-z
Join Subscribe deadpool
Join Subscribe dirty-secrets
Join Subscribe funny-junk
Join Subscribe no-post-sunday